Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38703 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2026 Thana- SANHAULA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/o Ramdhani Mandal R/o Village- Khiridar, P.S- Sanhaula, Dist- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application for anticipatory bail arises out of Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 25 of 2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.S.

3. As per the prosecution, on the question that the goat of Ramdhani Mandal entered in the house and started eating flour when the mother of the informant, objected to it, then the petitioner and co-accused persons came at the Veranda of the informant and started abusing the mother of the informant. It has further been alleged that when the father of the informant, namely, Subodh Mandal, came, he was brutally assaulted by all the accused persons including the petitioner, as a result of which, he died at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38703 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 petitioner and, in fact, the petitioner was not present on the alleged date of occurrence in his village, rather he was working at Ludhiana. It has further been submitted that the alleged occurrence took place without any premeditation to kill on trivial issue. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Heard the parties and perused the records.

7. The witnesses examined during the course of investigation have supported the allegation against the petitioner and the post mortem report also goes to show that the deceased has received head injuries caused by hard and blunt object and the same was grievous in nature.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. This application stands dismissed.

Sahil/- (Praveen Kumar, J) U T